linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf test x86: address multiplexing in rdpmc test

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200321134053.GJ20696@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Sat, 21 Mar 2020 14:40:53 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test x86: address multiplexing in rdpmc test

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 05:14:00PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> Counters may be being used for pinned or other events which inhibit the
> instruction counter in the test from being scheduled - time_enabled > 0
> but time_running == 0. This causes the test to fail with division by 0.
> Add a sleep loop to ensure that the counter is run before computing
> the count.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> ---
>  tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/rdpmc.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/rdpmc.c b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/rdpmc.c
> index 1ea916656a2d..0b0792ae67f7 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/rdpmc.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/rdpmc.c
> @@ -34,19 +34,35 @@ static u64 rdtsc(void)
>  	return low | ((u64)high) << 32;
>  }
>  
> -static u64 mmap_read_self(void *addr)
> +static u64 mmap_read_self(void *addr, bool *error)
>  {
>  	struct perf_event_mmap_page *pc = addr;
> -	u32 seq, idx, time_mult = 0, time_shift = 0;
> +	u32 seq, idx, time_mult = 0, time_shift = 0, sleep_count = 0;
>  	u64 count, cyc = 0, time_offset = 0, enabled, running, delta;
>  
> +	*error = false;
>  	do {
> -		seq = pc->lock;
> -		barrier();
> -
> -		enabled = pc->time_enabled;
> -		running = pc->time_running;
> -
> +		do {
> +			seq = pc->lock;
> +			barrier();
> +
> +			enabled = pc->time_enabled;
> +			running = pc->time_running;
> +
> +			if (running == 0) {

This is not in fact the condition the Changelog calls out.

> +				/*
> +				 * Event hasn't run, this may be caused by
> +				 * multiplexing.
> +				 */
> +				sleep_count++;
> +				if (sleep_count > 60) {
> +					pr_err("Event failed to run. Are higher priority counters being sampled by a different process?\n");
> +					*error = true;
> +					return 0;
> +				}
> +				sleep(1);
> +			}
> +		} while (running == 0);


Also, I would much prefer this test to be in the caller of this
function, and not deface this function.

I'd prefer this function to stay representative of the outlines in
uapi/linux/perf_event.h and an example of how to actually use it.

>  		if (enabled != running) {
>  			cyc = rdtsc();
>  			time_mult = pc->time_mult;
> @@ -131,13 +147,22 @@ static int __test__rdpmc(void)
>  
>  	for (n = 0; n < 6; n++) {
>  		u64 stamp, now, delta;
> +		bool error;
>  
> -		stamp = mmap_read_self(addr);
> +		stamp = mmap_read_self(addr, &error);
> +		if (error) {
> +			delta_sum = 0;
> +			goto out_close;
> +		}
>  
>  		for (i = 0; i < loops; i++)
>  			tmp++;
>  
> -		now = mmap_read_self(addr);
> +		now = mmap_read_self(addr, &error);
> +		if (error) {
> +			delta_sum = 0;
> +			goto out_close;
> +		}
>  		loops *= 10;
>  
>  		delta = now - stamp;
> -- 
> 2.25.1.696.g5e7596f4ac-goog
>